4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Rutki Kossaki.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, can be summarised as follows.
6.  By a judgment of 19 February 2007 the Gliwice District Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and sentenced him to one year and three months’ imprisonment.
7.  The applicant appealed against the judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the first instance court had not examined his request for the questions put to the witnesses to be written down in the minutes. He further complained that he had not had a possibility to have his questions put to certain witnesses that he had called.
8.  On 26 September 2007 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed the appeal. While examining the applicant’s particular complaints, the court noted that there was no indication in the minutes of the hearings held by the first-instance court to the effect that the applicant had ever requested this court to note down the questions put to the witnesses. In this connection, the court noted that the applicant had not sought to challenge the content of the minutes of the relevant court hearings, although he had had such a possibility. Moreover, the court observed that the testimonies of the witnesses called by the applicant had been read out in the applicant’s presence and that neither the applicant nor his lawyer had raised any complaint concerning the manner in which the witnesses had been heard.
9.  On 28 September 2007 the applicant requested to be granted legal aid with a view to having a cassation appeal lodged in his case.
10.  On 11 October 2007 the Gliwice Regional Court allowed the applicant’s request.
11.  By a letter of 15 November 2007 the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer informed the Gliwice Regional Court that he would not lodge a cassation appeal in the applicant’s case for lack of reasonable prospects of success. This letter was forwarded to the applicant by the Gliwice Regional Court on 19 November 2007. The correspondence, served on the applicant on 27 November 2007, did not contain any information concerning his procedural rights.
12.  In a letter of 2 December 2007 sent to the Gliwice Regional Court the applicant challenged the legal-aid lawyer’s refusal to lodge a cassation appeal and requested the court to appoint another lawyer. At the same time, he enquired whether the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal in his case was still running.
13.  By a letter of 13 December 2007 the Gliwice Regional Court informed the applicant, inter alia, that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal had already expired.
14.  On 2 April 2008 the applicant lodged his application with the Court. The President of the Fourth Section decided to communicate the case.
15.  By a letter of 21 July 2010 the Registrar requested the applicant to inform him whether he accepted the terms and conditions of a friendly settlement proposal.
16.  In reply, the applicant submitted two letters, both dated 12 August 2010, of which one was prepared in Polish and the other in English, apparently supposed to serve as a translation. The content and the register of the two texts were more or less equivalent.
17.  In the letters, the applicant informed the Registrar that he did not accept the friendly settlement proposal. He also made vague references to various sets of domestic proceedings, expressing his disapproval of the manner in which certain of his cases had been handled by unspecified “Polish judges”. The English version of the applicant’s submissions contained, inter alia, the following sentence:
“I had realized how insolently ignorant Polish judges were when it came to European Court’s judgments and how irresponsible they were for their swindles.”
In the equivalent part of the Polish text, the applicant referred to the Polish judges as being “brazen ignorants” (bezczelni ignoranci) and “completely irresponsible for their swindles” (bezgranicznie nieodpowiedzialni za swe szachrajstwa).
18.  On 14 September 2010 the Government submitted observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. They argued that the application should be declared inadmissible on grounds of abuse of the right of application. In this connection, the Government referred to the statements used by the applicant in his letters of 12 August 2010. A copy of the Government’s observations was sent to the applicant.
19.  By a letter of 28 October 2010, written in English, the applicant submitted, inter alia, his comments on the Government’s observations. He contested the Government’s submissions and went on to criticise the authorities of the respondent State, using, inter alia, the following statement:
“It is obvious that former and present members of the government elite apply the rules and regulations of the Communist Regime, by whose standards it is the citizens who should abide by the legal system while the government agencies and institutions are not accountable towards citizens.”
Further, referring more specifically to the Government’s objection, the applicant stated as follows:
“Truly if the Government feels offended why not take civil action against me or issue a warrant of arrest to be executed by the Polish court. Surely if this were the case they would prosecute and punish me easily as the Polish court is not independent but acts as a pro-government agency.”
The applicant then explained that the words that he had used in his letter of 12 August 2010 had been caused by his frustration over the manner in which his cases had been handled by the domestic authorities and expressed his apology. The relevant part of the letter read as follows:
“(...) I do apologize the Polish Government for my wording used to describe the Government and the Polish judges as they seem to be irritated, especially I regret before the High Court for my irrelevant expressions in the correspondence”.